Watermarking a print?

Mark1 wrote in post #11549753
It would depend on the point of the print. Not if it was paid for or free.

If the transaction was a sale. Weather actually paid or a freeby to a friend, then I would not sign or watermark it. But if it is to be hung somewhere as a promotional piece... Dr office, coffeeshop...etc...etc​. Then I would have a noticeable watermark in one of the corners.

I suppose everyone has their own thoughts and views about this. I've only done prints for myself, so I have no real world experience doing it for clients, but I would think that I would want to have my name on everything I took, unless specifically requested by the client. Say it was something I took and gave to a friend (free or not) and they display it in their house.... When they have friends over, they would see that AWESOME PICTURE with my name/logo, which I would think would lead to more referrals. No one else could take credit for that image.

This takes me back to seeing the Olan Mills logo on prints ... it was definitely there on every print. Why not take credit for your work... it's gotta be better than Olan Mills, right? This is to say, that it doesnt have to be a 100% opacity marking either, it can be toned down, so it doesnt take away from the image.

http://contact.ebay.co​m …irect=0&request​ed=dckelly

if I were ever to get into the portrait business, I would definitely look into a foil embosser...

drvnbysound wrote in post #11549859
I suppose everyone has their own thoughts and views about this. I've only done prints for myself, so I have no real world experience doing it for clients, but I would think that I would want to have my name on everything I took, unless specifically requested by the client. Say it was something I took and gave to a friend (free or not) and they display it in their house.... When they have friends over, they would see that AWESOME PICTURE with my name/logo, which I would think would lead to more referrals. No one else could take credit for that image.

This takes me back to seeing the Olan Mills logo on prints ... it was definitely there on every print. Why not take credit for your work... it's gotta be better than Olan Mills, right? This is to say, that it doesnt have to be a 100% opacity marking either, it can be toned down, so it doesnt take away from the image.

I go round and round on this.

Art (paintings) is not considered valuable till it is a signed piece. So why is photography any different? Shouldn't we value a signed print more than one that is not like with paintings?

Then again people do not buy prints to advertise that artist. They buy it because they like it.

I am right there with you on the Olan MIlls point. It is a very prominent stamp. And I guess if you are shooting portraits that can be mass produced like that by just about anybody who can push a button, (not joking here.....have you seen some of their "photographers"?) then you need something to get the name across. If you are doing fine art prints, I think it is less of a need.

You want people to know who made the image, But a photo credit never paid the mortgage either.

Flores wrote in post #11549984
http://contact.ebay.co​m …irect=0&request​ed=dckelly

if I were ever to get into the portrait business, I would definitely look into a foil embosser...

Any links to the results of using something like that? Just curious...

Mark1 wrote in post #11550111
Then again people do not buy prints to advertise that artist. They buy it because they like it.

You want people to know who made the image, But a photo credit never paid the mortgage either.

You are right (and it's worth reciting), people don't by prints to advertise the artist... they buy it because they like it. That is getting your foot into the door - literally into their home or business. It's getting followers, and additional work that will pay the mortgage

How does anyone know who made the image, if your name isn't there? Are you CERTAIN that the person to is displaying your work is doing it due diligence and referring those who comment on it to you? Relationships, whether personal or business, are not permanent. Those who have your work displayed don't have to give you credit, particularly when that relationship is rocky, but your name could be a permanent mark that never alters based on feelings or circumstances.

Your images can speak volumes of your ability, but if no one knows who created it, what good does that do you?

ssim wrote in post #11549840
I think you made a wise choice. Whether it is a favor or a sale the use of the print is the same in the end, you were the one that decided not to charge for it. On anything large, say 16x20 or larger I sign by hand in gold foil but other than that I only put a sticker on the back of the print. They paid (or were given the print) and I don't see the necessity to have the photographers name splashed on something I may hang on one of my walls.

I sometimes donate some of my printed photos, and put one of those "sticky" stamps on the back. The stamp has my name, address, and a note indicating that the photo should not be reproduced in any way or form without my written consent. But sometimes I just give them away and forget about it. I just ask that I be recognized as the person who took the photo, just in case

As for posting my photos on the Internet, I write my name on it much like a visible watermark, just so others become familiar with my photos and the name. I imagine that a professional photographer, which I am not, would use a watermark or logo not only to ID his photos when posted on the net, but to advertise his business, both at once.

kaitlyn2004 wrote in post #11550468
Any links to the results of using something like that? Just curious...

the more I'm looking at it, I think the 'look' I was wanting with this type of thing would be easier/better with just a stamp and the right color ink

either that, or go with something like this:

http://www.customembos​sers.com/custom_artwor​k.htm

of course, the only time it would get used is on a nice finished print 'work of art' type thing. looking at some of the prints I have hanging on the wall, I could see a couple of them that might be pretty cool that way.